At times in Christian thought, the priorities of pure doctrine and passionate mission have been perceived as opposites on a spectrum where emphasis on one results in neglect of the other, but without one, the other is deficient and doomed to crumble. Mission without doctrine is like a body without a skeleton, but apart from mission, doctrine is like dry bones in a museum. A Lutheran Reformission maintains a dual emphasis, resulting in doctrinal missions as well as missional doctrine.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Is it acceptable
for Christians to patronize a business whose owner’s behavior outside of work
conflicts with their morals?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the
Western Church is in the midst of emerging from several centuries of
Christendom—where the Church, the government, and the culture formed a unified
front which suppressed dissent and all three enforced conformity to the same
standards—but it seems those who desire to live out a Christian ethic are
mystified about how to live in a world where they must interact with people who
are different from them.

I remember the days not too long ago when boycotts were
all the rage among Christians and there were whole organizations and
publications that seemed single-mindedly devoted to announcing on a monthly or
weekly basis which companies should be the targets of Christian boycotts and
which had conceded to an extent that it was now acceptable to do business with
them.

It seems to me that this approach has some very serious
flaws. Most importantly, it fails to
acknowledge that all of the people with whom we engage in transactions on a
given day are sinners and every business we patronize is owned by a
sinner. In order to avoid financially
supporting sin, the only option left for Christians would be subsistence
farming, because they wouldn’t even be able to do business with one
another.

Additionally, it improperly prioritizes sins so that
those which are most emotionally-charged draw more attention while those that
are actually more serious go unnoticed.
For example, so many calls for a boycott have to do with sexual ethics,
while I have never seen a call to boycott restaurants which display Buddha
statues or convenience stores with a painting of the Hindu god or goddess
behind the counter.

A quick survey of the New Testament finds that there
are, indeed, several instances where the believers are called to be separate or
avoid certain others. However, closer
examination finds that these are always in the arena of church fellowship. They are called to be separate from those who
worship other gods and to avoid those who teach false doctrine. These calls never involve the Christian’s
dealings in business or in the world.

Instead, on the one occasion this is addressed, Paul
answers quite differently. Upon being
asked whether it was acceptable for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols,
Paul tells the Christians not even to ask where the meat came from when it is
served to them, because an idol is really nothing at all. He encourages them that they should feel free
to eat, with the one exception that they should refrain in the presence of a
weak or uninstructed Christian who might be caused distress by their doing so.

When choosing a congregation, calling a pastor, or other
spiritual matters, caution and thorough examination of these things is
certainly in order. Of course Christians
should avoid the book sale or benefit where the explicit purpose is to raise
funds for harmful and immoral causes. And
these questions might need to be asked regarding services where the spiritual
beliefs of the practitioner are relevant, such as psychological
counseling. But, in everyday commerce,
we are called to engage the world, not to hide from it.

So, instead of investigating which political party your
banker donates to, spend your time comparing rates and services. Instead of grilling the kid making your
sandwich what he did or did not do on his date Friday night, ask him if it
comes with mustard. Instead of
concerning yourself as to your barista’s lifestyle choices, ask her about the
new flavor, how college is going, or maybe even invite her to church. That is the Christian way to do
business. And pay less attention to what
television personalities’ positions are on the grazing rights of endangered
mountain goats and ask if their show makes you laugh (or cry, or whatever it is
you’re looking for) and watch accordingly, rather than demanding that they keep
or lose their job based on whether they agree with you.

For a business whose owner is working to make a living
by providing a respectable product or an ethical service, the Christian’s
concern is not what they intend to do with the profit from the business or what
causes they support after hours, but whether they provide a good product or are
skilled at their trade. After all, if
Christians were to hide from the world in closed enclaves, how would those
still needing the truth about Jesus ever hear it?

Monday, November 25, 2013

My article from this week's newspapers about duties and expectations of a pastor's wife:

Q: What does the Bible have to say
about the role of the pastor’s wife in the congregation? Are there additional expectations of her, or
special privileges in comparison to other members?

If an individual with no experience
in a church were asked to observe the life of several congregations, they would
probably report that, when their pastor is married, the pastor’s wife is
treated differently, to some degree, than other members of the
congregation.

In traditions with celibate clergy,
this is obviously not a question, and in traditions which have instituted
female clergy, the social dynamics have been reported to be different for clergy
husbands, but in the majority of traditions where married, male clergy are the
norm, the pastor’s wife finds herself facing a unique set of expectations not
placed upon others.

Many African-American Protestant
congregations even refer to the pastor’s wife as the “first lady” of the congregation,
with a role in the congregation that resembles the role of the President’s wife
has in our nation.

It has been a typical expectation in
the recent history of American Christianity, that the pastor’s wife be able to
play the organ, that she would teach Sunday School, participate heavily in (or
frequently to lead) the ladies aid or other women’s organizations in the
congregation, and possibly lead a youth group serve (without pay) as church
secretary, or direct Christmas programs for good measure.

In addition to all of this, she was
expected to manage her household, largely without the assistance of her husband
(who was too busy with congregational business to help at home), ensure
perfectly angelic behavior from her children (both in and outside of church),
and be prepared at all times to host guests at a moment’s notice in her
perfectly-kept home. And if her husband
was found in any vice, such as an affair or alcohol abuse, local gossip would
likely find fault with her for “driving him to it.”

Wives who found themselves living in
a parsonage (church-owned home for the pastor’s family) often faced even more
challenging circumstances, as not only were their lives (with accompanying mistakes
and imperfections) more easily observed by the congregation, with little
privacy (what some authors have called “life in the fishbowl”), but often they
were held to impossibly high standards for their care and keeping of the “congregation’s
house.”

Even when these expectations are not
as severe as they once were, many of them still carry on today, but what does
the Bible have to say about the role of the pastor’s wife? Nearly nothing.

While it does seem that many of the
Apostles were married, (1 Corinthians 9 mentions the apostles’ wives, and the
Gospel of Luke mentions Peter’s mother-in-law) I cannot recall any instance
where the wives actions are described or that their names are even mentioned. Likewise, the roles of Barnabus, Titus and
Timothy’s wives and the rest of the second generation of pastors are also not
described within the Bible.

The closest the Bible comes to
describing the expectations of a pastor’s wife is when Paul writes to Timothy
and Titus that the pastor must have only one wife, and that he must have his
family and children in order—but these are more about the pastor than his
wife.

Biblically, there is no such office in
the church as pastor’s wife. The pastor
is called to publicly proclaim God’s Word to his congregation, and the
administer God’s Sacraments there—that is his office, and does not extend to
her. His wife finds herself not in the
role of co-pastor, unofficial secretary, or full-time church volunteer, but
instead that of wife, mother, neighbor, Christian woman, or whatever earthly
vocation she has chosen to undertake. Her
she is called, first of all, to carry these out well.

She may then do some of the things
previously mentioned, but not because she is the pastor’s wife, but because she
is a Christian and serves in the congregation just like the other members. In other circumstances, her greatest
contribution might not be what she is expected to do in public, but to care for
her home and children and thus support her husband’s ability to be about the
work of ministry on behalf of the congregation.
All are equally beneficial to the body of Christ, one is not more noble
than the others, and she is free to do whatever seems most wise in her judgment
for the circumstances in which she and her family live.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Q: Are there some sins that God
considers more offensive or worthy of punishment than others?

The endeavor of classifying or
comparing sins is one that takes on different nuances depending on the context
in which the question is asked.

The most straightforward example of
this would be the context of salvation.
In this context, both the quality and the quantity of the sin are
irrelevant. The Epistle of James reveals
this concisely when it states that “Whoever keeps the whole law, yet sins at
just one point, is guilty of breaking all of it.” If one proposes to earn salvation by means of
obeying the law, the standard of perfection.
The presence of any sin, great or small, means failure. In this sense, one sin is the same as the
next, whether mass murder or shoplifting, and all incur the same consequence.

In contrast to this, it has been
proposed by some that there are two types of sin—mortal sins which lead to
condemnation and venial sins which, while still morally wrong, do not
necessarily condemn. However, the type
of sin is not what condemns, but rather the un-forgiven status of the sinner
who commits it. Mortal sins really are
those committed, no matter how small, apart from Christ’s forgiveness. Venial sins are really those committed, no
matter how large, that are covered by Christ’s forgiveness.

The fact that all sin does not cease
to be true for those who become Christians.
The Bible does not tell a story of sinners and righteous people, but
rather the story of one righteous man, Jesus, and a world of sinners—some
forgiven and some un-forgiven. The
difference between Christians and non-Christians is not portrayed by the Bible
as whether they sin or not, but as how that sin is to be handled. For one who trusts in himself, in nothing at
all, or in some other entity than Jesus, he bears the burden of repaying his
sins himself, and even the smallest sin condemns. On the other hand, for one who trusts in
Jesus as his substitute in living a God-pleasing life and in suffering sin’s
punishment, no sin can condemn.

Similarly, there is the case of
willful or unrepentant sin—these are sins done with the knowledge that they are
wrong, but disregarding concern for the fact that they are. This is the sort of sin would cause great concern
that the one who commits it is apart from Christ. On the other hand, there are those that might
be known as sins of weakness or crimes of passion. These are committed without contemplation of
or with inadequate appreciation for their sinfulness, and might only be
realized as wrong after the fact. These
might be committed by the Christian and non-Christian alike, and would include
such things as an assault or murder that occurs in a flash of anger or the
suicide committed in the dark depths of depression or despair. While such actions certainly remain sins
before God, they would not necessarily indicate to a pastoral care provider
that the one who commits them has been denied forgiveness or separated from
Christ.

In another context, there is a
distinction between a sin’s implications before God versus before man. Before God, all sins are equally condemning,
as previously described, while at the same time, those sins have varying
degrees of impact here on earth. These
consequences before man are significantly different in that some sins merely
cause offense to those who are sinned against, while others create a
devastating ripple effect that causes immeasurable harm to those sinned
against. This is why society responds
more harshly to sins like child molestation and premeditated murder than to
gossip or lust and why habitual criminals are more strongly punished than
first-time offenders.

The important realization to be
emphasized regarding sin is that all sin must be accounted for, either by the
sinner himself, or by Jesus, and that the important factor is not the quantity
or quality of the sin, but rather that it be forgiven by Jesus and the sinner
reconciled to God through Him.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about the resurrected saints in Matthew 27:52-53.

Q: Can you explain the
resurrection of the saints that occurs after Jesus death in Matthew
27:52-53? Who were they, and what
happened to them after they were raised?

This is one of those little-known
details of the Gospels that is often overlooked and rarely understood. Even Matthew, himself, who is the only Gospel
writer to include this detail, gives us very few details, and no explanation
about, the event.

What we do know is that this occurs
at the time of Jesus’ death. This is a
sign that accompanies an earthquake and the thick curtain that divided the Most
Holy Place from the rest of the Temple being torn in half. All of these events are more than
coincidental.

Earthquakes were commonly associated
with God’s judgment in the Old Testament.
In this case, the earthquake signifies that God’s judgment has been
poured out upon Jesus and now stands satisfied by His death.

The temple veil marked the boundary
which could not be crossed by humans, because God’s presence was dwelling on
the other side, and unauthorized entry would bring certain death. Even the high priest could only enter once a
year and only after first making sacrifice for his own sins beforehand. That it was torn indicated that the
separation from God caused by sin had now been overcome and that the forgiven
could now approach God directly with their prayers and requests.

Resurrection of the dead was a sign
commonly associated in Old Testament prophecy with the coming of the promised
Messiah. However, these prophecies often
did not distinguish between Jesus first and second comings, and what remains to
be completely fulfilled when Jesus returns was seen being fulfilled on a small
scale during His life and ministry.

We see this as Jesus, for a number of
people, gives sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, casts out demons, and
overcomes all kinds of illness and disability during his ministry—all of which
will be fulfilled completely when He comes again on the Last Day.

These dead who are raised are
similar. On three occasions, Jesus did
raise the dead during His ministry, and now in connection with His death, we
see resurrection occurring again. We
know that there were not only a few who were raised, because Matthew calls them
“many,” yet this is also short of all being raised.

We also know that those who were
raised were “saints,” that is, those who died trusting in Jesus. These could be saints who witnessed a portion
of the life of Jesus, but died prior to His crucifixion, or they could be Old
Testament saints from prior eras who died trusting that He would come one day,
or even both, but Matthew does not clarify.

We also know that they rise in
connection with Jesus’ death, which is actually quite appropriate. Even though Jesus rises on the third day,
prefiguring for us what awaits all
believers on the Last Day, these saints rise as Jesus dies, emphasizing
that it is Jesus’ death which purchases God’s forgiveness and blessing for us,
which result in Resurrection.

However, they do not appear in Jerusalem until “after His resurrection,”
leaving us to wonder where they remained in the meantime. Matthew does not explain this detail either,
but since we know Jesus remained on earth 40 days following His resurrection,
which his whereabouts only occasionally being made known, we can conclude that
God also made similar provision for these resurrected saints during these three
days.

The destiny of these resurrected
saints in the time which follows is also a matter of uncertainty. Since it seems that the three individuals
raised by Jesus during His ministry later died again (as we do not see them
walking among us today), along with the few resurrected by the Prophets before
Jesus and the Apostles after Him, it seems reasonable that these saints also
returned one day to their graves.

However we also have a concrete example in Elijah, and perhaps a second in
Enoch, that it is quite possible for a person to go to be with the Lord while
remaining in the body. So, perhaps these
saints, like Elijah and Jesus Himself, dwell with the Lord in their body while
the rest of the saints await the Last day for that privilege.

Even in spite of these uncertainties
the message of the resurrected saints is clear—Jesus death gives life to those
who trust in Him—first restoring our souls for the remainder of earthly life,
but ultimately for physical life which will continue without end.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

My article from this week's newspapers:Q: Does the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) mean that Christians are forbidden from using any other sources to help them understand the teachings of Jesus?

Sola Scriptura, the idea that Scripture is the only authority for teaching in the Christian Church, was one of the “Four Solas” of the Reformation, which also included Sola Gratia (Grace Alone – that salvation is purely a gift from God, not earned by our deeds or behavior), Sola Fide (Faith Alone – that God’s grace is received by simply by trusting in Him, and not by any human effort or ability), and Solus Christus (Christ Alone – that God’s grace, in which we trust, comes to us only because of the crucified Christ).

While there have been many historical misunderstandings of each of these, Sola Scriptura can have its own particular challenges. On one hand, many churches have introduced one or more sources of authority alongside of the Scriptures, while at the same time, many reflexively reject all other documents and formulations out of hand, even when they are not elevated to the same level as Scripture.

On one side of the equation, it is dangerous to add sources of authority alongside of, or particularly, above, the Bible. The apostle John even warns of this danger in the final verses of the book of Revelation, promising divine consequences to any who would add to or take away from Scripture.

One way in which this occurs is when there is a human official who is given the authority to unilaterally rule on what the Bible means and to speak with divine authority on issues that are deemed to be unclear in the Bible or where the Bible has remained silent. In addition to the inherent danger of adding rules or teaching beyond the Bible, there is also the potential that the official, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will find themselves in a situation where their declarations contradict Scripture, which results in their ultimately becoming superior to the Bible or reinterpreting the Bible to fit with the new teachings.

Another way in which this occurs is when a person’s individual experiences are allowed to become a source of authority. Because religious experiences cannot be verified, they leave no reliable way to know whether they were genuine, mistaken, or even a deception sent by the enemy, making them inadequate as authorities regarding God and what He desires or wants us to know, especially in cases where they contradict or go beyond the written Word.

Another category of extra-Biblical sources is the History, Liturgy, and Creeds of the Church. These differ, because they are rooted in Scripture itself. Church History tells us how past Christians have handled questions and understood the Bible. The Liturgy speaks to what the beliefs of Christians have been through the ages or what the emphasis of a particular tradition might be, and the Creeds are summaries of Scripture intended to aid memorization and to briefly, yet clearly, articulate the core beliefs of the Church to others.

While these could become dangerous in the event they were made equal to Scripture or placed above it, they are not inherently problematic. Because the ancient Creeds, for example, are drawn completely from Scripture, they merely repeat in summary form what has already been said, and do not add to the Bible.

When liturgy or historical documents are used with the understanding that they are drawn from and ultimately point us back to Scripture, they actually aid our understanding of what Scripture has already said and help us to understand and avoid the places where those in the past have gone astray, and as long as the understanding remains that they are secondary documents derived from Scripture, and never equal to or above it, they become aids that allow us to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before as we address the contemporary questions of our age from a Biblical foundation.

Monday, October 7, 2013

My article from this week's newspapers about using "Father" as a pastoral title:

Q: Is it acceptable to call a
pastor “Father” in light of Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:9? What are the appropriate ways to address clergy
in various churches?

While there are many forms of address
for clergy, such as Pastor, Father, Reverend, etc. their particular use does
vary from denomination to denomination and according to circumstances.

Reverend (abbreviated Rev.) is one
title for which its use is confined to a particular sphere. While it is true that clergy of various
degrees and in the majority of denominations properly deserve the title
Reverend, it is often misused in American English.

It is intended to be a written form
of address, such as when addressing or signing letters, but it is not intended
to be used as a form of spoken address (“Hello, Rev. Luther;” “I just talked to
Rev. Luther.”) It is also intended to be used with the clergy’s full name (Rev.
Martin Luther) and if one desires to be meticulous about it, should be preceded
by “The” and followed by the clergy’s familiar title (The Rev. Father Martin
Luther, The Rev. Pastor Martin Luther), although this practice is in decline in
recent years.

Pastor is typically appropriate for a
majority of clergy. How this title is
used will vary between churches.
Traditionally, the word Pastor followed by the last name (Pastor Luther)
would be used in spoken address.
Although in past generations, it would have been considered
disrespectful, it has recently become more common, especially in more informal
churches, to use the title Pastor with the first name (Pastor Martin)
instead.

The title Father is most commonly
used among Roman Catholics, but does have some following among Eastern
Orthodox, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches.
Some objections have been raised to this term, based on Jesus words in
Matthew 23:9, when He says, “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one
Father, who is in heaven.

However, when taken in context, it
would be difficult to understand this as prohibiting the use of Father as a
title in the church. First of all, such
an understanding would prohibit us from calling even our biological fathers by
that name, since Jesus says to call “no man” father. Additionally, in the surrounding verses he
makes similar prohibitions about using the titles Rabbi and Instructor as well,
which have not historically been understood as universal prohibitions.

Even more, the Apostle Paul speaks of
himself as a spiritual father in 1 Corinthians 4:15 and calls Timothy his “true
child in the faith” in 1 Timothy 1:2.
Finally, He instructs believers not to rebuke their pastors but to
encourage them as they would fathers in 1 Timothy 5.

Teachers of Christianity, such as
Martin Luther have also understood many offices with earthly authority as being
derived from the authority of fatherhood—particularly in vocations such as
teacher, pastor, and government rulers, and the first generations of reformers
retained the title Father for their pastors prior to its later
disappearance.

The most sensible approach to this
saying of Jesus seems to be as a warning against those who demand titles of
honor (such as the Pharisees who were there with Him) and against honoring a
man more highly than God. So, if a man
demands the title Father and uses His authority contrary to God’s Word, it
would certainly be inappropriate to give him any honor or obedience. However, if a man acts in service to God as a
ruler, pastor, or teacher, and teaches and rules according to God’s Word, it
would be a matter of Christian freedom what title one is to address him
by—whether pastor, father, or otherwise.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Q: Does the Bible allow for
polygamy? If a Christian man lived in a
country where it is legal, would it be
acceptable for him to marry multiple wives?

Polygamy can be a challenging
question for students of the Bible.
After all, there are numerous examples of polygamous marriage throughout
the Old Testament some of which involve men who would undoubtedly be considered
heroes of the faith—Jacob, David, Solomon, and Gideon.

Unlike divorce, which has clear
guidelines in the New Testament about if/when it might be acceptable, polygamy
has no such mention. Very likely, this
is because it was not a topic of debate among the Jews of the time or among
early Christians, but there is no New Testament command explicitly allowing or
forbidding a man from marrying more than one wife.

However, the Bible clearly does not
envision polygamy as God’s design. In
the beginning, Genesis records that God creates one man and one woman, and not
a man with multiple wives. On numerous
occasions, Jesus affirms the statement from Genesis following the creation of
woman, that “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cling
to his own wife,” using it as the foundational principle for his other
statements about marriage and sexuality.

In the Old Testament, even though God
distributes robust punishments for various sexual sins (the Sodom and Gomorrah
incident, David and Bathsheba, etc.) he does not do the same for polygamy,
perhaps indicating a different degree to polygamy than to other sexual sins,
much like hatred and murder or gossip and lying under oath bring different
degrees of earthly consequences even though variations on the same sin.

At the same time, the Old Testament’s
example never portrays a polygamous family with good outcomes. Jealousy overshadows Jacob’s household. Abraham’s taking of Hagar as a concubine had
violent consequences which are still being felt between his sons’ descendants
in the Middle East to this day, and Solomon was led horribly astray as a result
of his numerous marriage partners.

In both Testaments, the marriage
commands and advice that are given relating to married life, such as in
Proverbs and Ephesians, are always given in singular terms, certainly
indicating a preference for monogamy. The
New Testament also demands monogamy on two occasions when giving qualifications
for pastoral service. This seems to
indicate not only a preference for monogamy, but also a command for monogamy
among all Christians. This is because
all other items on the list of pastoral qualifications are also true for
Christians in general. The difference
between pastors and Christians in general is not that pastors must obey
additional laws, but rather that certain sins (such as poor parenting, or
drunkenness), while sinful regardless of who commits them, are grounds for
disqualification for the pastoral office.

Finally, the Bible draws a clear
connection between the marriage relationship and the relationship between
Christ and the Church. Monogamous
marriage reflects this relationship in that there is one Christ and one Church
which includes believers of every nation, race, and denomination (not one
church with several saviors or one savior with several Churches). Other variations on a marriage relationship
fail to reflect this reality, because their participants do not match with
their counterparts in the Christ-Church relationship.

Although the Bible lacks a direct
statement that “Thou shalt not engage in polygamy,” there seems to be plentiful
evidence, that polygamy is, at the very least, discouraged and less than ideal,
but also a convincing argument that, linked to the commandment “You shall not
commit adultery,” polygamy is unacceptable in all cases for Christians.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Q: How do Christians resolve the
idea of evolution with the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis? Is it possible to reconcile these two ideas
or much one choose between them?

Soon after Charles Darwin published
his ideas of natural selection, Christians began to contemplate how it should
be received in light of the Genesis creation account and to formulate responses
to this new theory.

Some Christians ardently objected to
the contradiction, preferring the Genesis account, refusing to even study or evaluate
evolutionary theory in light of its disagreement with Scripture’s record. Others simply accepted the evolutionary
proposition as fact, disregarding the Biblical account as myth or symbolism in
the process.

Later, some arose who attempted to
reconcile the two in a concept called Theistic Evolution. This attempt accepts the premise of species,
even man, occurring by means of evolution, but gives God the credit for
orchestrating the process.

All of the responses mentioned so far
have their difficulties, though: For
Christians to simply disregard scientific research is problematic, because it
gives the appearance of anti-intellectualism and drives Christians to mere
belief that lacks a factual foundation.
For Christians to uncritically adopt a scientific position that forces
them to disregard Scripture is also problematic, because it leaves no reason to
affirm anything in Scripture as true, and ultimately no reason to continue as a
Christian.

Theistic Evolution likewise has
inconsistencies which make it an unsatisfying option for the Christian. However, this is not primarily because, as it
might appear on the surface, that it casts doubt on the Bible as a “literal”
source of spiritual truth. This is a
concern, but not the most significant problem.
Instead, the foundational problem with theistic evolution is that it abandons
a single human couple as the parents of all humanity—and therefore undermines
the foundational concepts of salvation and sin in Christianity.

If God guided the process of
evolution so as to produce humanity rather than creating man as a distinct act,
then one must discern exactly which generation marked the transition from a
former species (lacking an immortal, spiritual, existence; not accountable to
God for actions) to humanity (having an immortal soul and accountable to God
for actions).

Likewise, there would be multiple
pairs of humans giving rise to the human species rather than a single set of
parents, forcing the conclusion that not all people inherit sin from Adam and
therefore could be spiritually good, or at least spiritually neutral, and thus
not in need of salvation for sin.

In contrast, the Apostle Paul, in
Romans 5 attributes human sinfulness to our common descent from Adam, and
portrays Jesus as the perfect man who causes a reversal of Adam’s sin and gifts
righteousness to humanity by taking the place of Adam and all his descendants
in death.

Apart from a single set of human
parents, sin is not universally attributed to all humanity, and more importantly,
sin cannot be collectively forgiven by Jesus’ substitution—thus undermining the
foundational idea of all Christianity and rendering the religion of no value,
because it could offer neither full forgiveness nor complete assurance to
man.

A reasonable path in dealing with
evolution as a Christian seems to be to affirm Darwin’s observable and
repeatable explanations of change within species (called micro-evolution) while
denying his unobservable, unrepeatable proposal of evolution across species (called
macro-evolution).

Although remaining space does not
allow much elaboration in this edition, modern research is indicating numerous
instances where evolution does not adequately explain many natural phenomena,
and while science cannot tell us who is responsible, it is becoming more and
more evident with the passage of time that nature shows evidence of
design. As a result, exclusive
evolutionists are declining in number in younger generations of scientists and
other explanations are being sought as to the source of this design,
particularly regarding the complex structures of the human body.

It is ultimately unwise and
inappropriate for Christians to pose an adversarial relationship between
science and faith, because it does justice to neither. At the same time, it is not necessary for
Christians to attempt to compromise between the two. Instead, Christians affirm well-researched
science and its conclusions, while questioning agenda-driven or poorly
considered theories. In doing so, it
becomes evident with the passage of time that the Bible and modern research
actually agree and science ultimately affirms the claims of Scripture.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Q: Does Christianity believe in
Karma? How does Christianity believe
peoples actions toward one another are rewarded and punished in this
world?

Karma is an idea that originates in
East-Asian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Their understanding of both time and life
is one of repeating cycles rather than the linear progression that we in the
western world understand. So, while we
illustrate the passage of time with timelines of history, they would draw a
shape resembling a coiled spring that wraps back on itself.

Part of this understanding includes
reincarnation, which is the belief that souls are repeatedly born into a series
of lives over the course of time. Karma
carries the result that those who do good in one life will advance in the next
while those who do evil will regress in the next life. Many in these religions also believe that
Karma also influences events within lives.

This means that those who do what is
right in this life would receive good fortune in return while those who do evil
in this life would suffer loss or tragedy in return. These karmic responses are not seen as being
guided by a personal god, but rather an impersonal universe which seeks to keep
balance by repaying actions with consequences in kind.

While such an understanding might
seem quite sensible on its surface, such ideas are completely foreign to a
Christian understanding of things. When
Jesus’ disciples encountered a man who had been born blind, they asked whether
it was he or his parents who had committed a sin to cause such a thing to
occur. Jesus clearly denies that any
such thing is true, saying that neither was the cause of his blindness.

Even though sometimes sinful or
unwise behavior has natural consequences, Christianity does not understand any
system, with or without the guidance of God, which repays them in this
life. Instead, the unanimous witness of
Scripture is that earthly tragedies are a result of sin in the world. However, this is not a correspondence of one
sin or one person’s sin to certain consequences. Instead, the Bible portrays earthly suffering
as the consequences broken by the collective weight of human sin.

For Christianity, there are
consequences to sinful behavior that go beyond the natural results of the
action, but these consequences are eternal rather earthly, and complete rather
than proportional—any deviation from perfection deserves eternal death and
punishment in hell.

Rewards in Christianity are likewise
opposite to the idea of karma.
Christianity sees no ability in humans to earn rewards from God. Because they fail to achieve perfection, they
fail the test of God’s law.

Instead, rewards are received by the
Christian based on Jesus’ performance rather than their own. Whoever trusts in Jesus’ is promised to be
rewarded on the basis of His perfect record which replaces their own. These rewards are received as a gift rather
than earned, and like the punishments deserved for sin, they are only realized
in eternity.

While trust in Jesus has benefits in
this world such as peace with God and relief from the anxiety of relying on the
uncertainties of our imperfect efforts in relation to God, these benefits are
secondary to the primary reward of resurrected life with Jesus that will be
initiated on the Last Day and continue without end.

Karma is ultimately the complete
opposite of the Christian understanding of rewards and punishments—both because
it relies on a different basis (human performance vs. divine gift) and because it
awards them in this life or subsequent lives rather than in an eternity which
commences following only a single life in this world.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about certainty and doubt in Christianity:

Q: How can I be certain that I am
really Christian? If I find myself
doubting, can I still be saved?

This is a question that Christians
throughout the ages have found themselves considering. Because humans are hard-wired for action for
the purpose of survival, we almost automatically translate this capacity in
earthly things into our consideration of spiritual things. In keeping with this, many people even
mistakenly attribute Benjamin Franklin’s proverb that “God helps those who help
themselves” to the Bible instead.

Because we are personally responsible
for preserving the security of our earthly provisions, although doing so with
talents and strength that were given by God, we too often assume that the same
applies when we begin considering heavenly matters.

Even for Christians who acknowledge
that Jesus saves us as a gift, which we receive by trusting in and relying
upon, the temptation arises to look within ourselves for a measurement of how
well we trust in Jesus or how fully we rely upon Him. But doing this introduces an element of doubt
by placing the focus on our believing instead of God’s grace.

When we consider our standing before
God, however, Scripture makes abundantly clear that, spiritually speaking,
there is nothing good in us that can cause or improve where we stand with God,
and that there is no effort or worthiness in us that is sufficient to
participate in saving us.

Paul quotes the Psalms as evidence of
this when he writes in the book of Romans:
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understand; no one seeks for
God. All have turned aside; toether they
have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

However, this is not bad news. In fact, it serves to prepare us for even
greater assurance. If we were capable of
contributing something, we would be expected to do so, and accountable if we
failed. Instead, as Paul tells the
Ephesians: “It is by grace you are
saved, through faith…not by works.” Nothing
within man is the determining factor in salvation—not our decision, not our
cooperation, not even the quantity or quality of our believing.

Instead, we place all of our
confidence and certainty on Jesus. He
has accomplished salvation. He forgives
sins. He does it all. Faith is not a degree of trust that a Christian
works up within himself to come to or look to Jesus, but instead, it is the
Christian’s denial of themselves and their own participation and their reliance
upon Jesus’ death as the complete and already-accomplished cause of salvation.

When the Bible warns against “doubt,”
what it cautions against is unbelief—the prideful rejection of Jesus as the
all-accomplishing savior or the denial of His forgiveness. When the Christian who still trusts in Jesus,
finds himself questioning in search of confirmation or feeling a degree of
uncertainty because of his own weakness or the deceit of false teachers, this
is not the doubt which condemns, but rather, a part of the spiritual battle
that rages as long as this life endures.

If embraced or allowed to fester,
such doubts could eventually grow like a cancer to endanger a Christians soul,
but when treated with the antidote of Scripture and the Sacraments and relieved
by the support of fellow Christians, they often prove to be the experiences
which ultimately serve to advance the Christian in their understanding of and
perseverance in the Faith, as James says:
“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,
for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.”

Monday, July 29, 2013

Q: What does the Bible say about
the relationship between pastors and congregations? Are there certain duties that they have
toward one another?

Paul describes pastors in 1
Corinthians 4 as “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of
God.” This description may seem
different to many American Christians, but it is the Biblical job description
for pastors. It makes clear, first, that
pastors are not mere employees who must follow the orders given by their
congregations, but instead, they work for Christ and are answerable to Him and
serve their congregations on His behalf and at His command.

In this service to Christ as
“stewards of the mysteries of God,” their primary task is to deliver God’s
grace by preaching, teaching, Baptizing, forgiving sin, and providing the
Lord’s Supper. All of the
administrative, organizational, creative, and other tasks we Americans
typically associate with a pastor’s work are really secondary to their foremost
task of administering the Word and Sacraments according to the Lord’s
institution. The Gospel of Matthew
provides a similar description as Jesus tells the disciples, who were the first
pastors, “As you are going, make disciples of all nations by Baptizing and by
teaching them to keep all that I have instructed you.”

In return for their pastor’s
commitment to devote His life to serving Christ by delivering God’s gifts to
the congregation, the New Testament also assigns duties to congregations in
relation to their pastor(s):

Since the pastor’s time is devoted to
delivering God’s Word to the congregation, it is necessary that the
congregation provide for the needs of the pastor’s family. By doing so, they not only honor His
providing for their needs, but also remove the anxiety of financial pressures
which would ultimately distract from his concentration on serving them.

This principle dates to the New
Testament as Paul tells the congregations, “those who preach the Gospel should
receive their living from the Gospel,” and “Anyone who receives instruction in
the word must share all good things with his instructor,” even comparing it to the Old Testament
command not to muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.

Even more, he instructs the
Christians to “respect [pastors] who work hard among you, who are over you in
the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them
in the highest regard in love because of their work,” and to “obey your leaders
and submit to their authority. They keep
watch over you as men who must give an account.
Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would
be of no advantage to you.”

As one who has a high degree of
instruction in Scripture, Christian doctrine, and the care of souls, the
congregation is commanded to honor and respect their pastor as he fulfills his
office and the duties assigned to Him, some of which include making unpopular
decisions and enforcing unpopular positions that are commanded by Scripture.

The pastor is no dictator, though,
because both He and the congregation are called to submit together to God and
His Word as their highest authority. The
saying that the pastor “must give an account” for His work among the saints
emphasizes this responsibility. They are
also to correct one another if they depart from its teachings.

The Bible describes the relationship
between Jesus and the Church as like a husband and wife, and since, when he
serves in the office of the ministry, the pastor represents Christ, the
relationship between him and the congregation as a whole resembles that of a husband
and wife as well, extending Paul’s commands to husbands and wives in Ephesians
5 so that the pastor is commanded to love his congregation and the congregation
commanded to respect their pastor(s).

Similarly, the relationship between
the pastor and individual members of his parish resembles that of a father and
his children, which is the reason Pastors are sometimes called Father among
several denominations of Christians, including Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and
Eastern Orthodox.

All of these descriptions of the
pastor’s relationship to the congregation are given so that the goal Paul
describes would be attained—that the pastor’s service would be a joy rather
than a burden, and therefore, his ministry would be an advantage rather than a
disadvantage to his congregation.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Q: If a person believes in God,
does that make them a Christian, or does it include something more?

The phrase “believe in God” can be a
difficult thing at times. I think the
meaning of this phrase even tends to vary depending on the generation a person
comes from.

In the mid-twentieth century, the
question, “Do you believe in God?” was synonymous with asking, “Are you a
Christian?” In that era, to be a
mainstream American was to be a Christian, and with very few exceptions, such
as the Jewish population of New York City, the alternative to Christianity was
seen as Atheism. So, in that context,
the question fit the needs of the time in discerning whether one’s conversation
partner was a fellow Christian or not.

Today, though, the first response of
many people when asked whether they believe in God might be “Which one?” With the introduction of eastern religions to
the American scene by celebrities and popular musicians later in the twentieth
century, as well as a shift where immigrants began arriving from Southeast Asia
and the Middle East rather than from Europe, many different definitions of god
began to reside side-by-side in our country.

Even though this does not render all
of the definitions equally valid, it does mean that one now has to discern
which God one is being asked if they believe in, thus complicating the question
and necessitating further inquiry before it is possible to answer.

There is also difficulty regarding
the word believe. Today, this word
typically indicates a either the non-factual acceptance of an idea, such as
when asked “Do you believe in Santa Claus?” or at least a level of uncertainty
about an answer, such as in the reply, “I believe my favorite driver won last
night’s race.”

Instead, the Greek word used in the
Bible indicates quite the opposite. Its
definition includes such things as certainty about, reliance on, and trust in
the object of belief. So, speaking
Biblically, one does not believe in God the way one believes in the Tooth Fairy
or an uncertain recollection of past events.
Instead, one acknowledges God’s existence as factual, reliable, and
trustworthy.

Additionally, even having a proper
definition of and certainty about the existence of God does not make one a
Christian. James writes in the New
Testament, “You do well to believe there is one God. Even the demons believe that, but they are
terrified!.” Even believing in one God
and knowing who He is does not make one a Christian, since even the demons do
that much.

Believing that God exists makes one a
Theist. Believing that there is only one
God makes one a Monotheist, but both fall short of being a Christian. Instead, what defines a Christian, beyond
just acknowledging that God is a Trinity and Jesus is fully God and fully
human, is to trust in Jesus to forgive one’s sin and give salvation and eternal
life.

This means complete reliance on Jesus as the one and only way a person can
stand in light of God’s judgment. It
includes that one trust that Jesus has both fulfilled God’s law and suffered
God’s punishment as a substitute for humanity and that those promises are
applied to a person through preaching, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

These things, beyond merely
acknowledging God’s existence, are the definition of what it means to be a
Christian, and are what the Bible means when it speaks of believing in
God.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Q: If a person is born with the
inclination to desire certain things or act in certain ways, then how could God
judge them for acting on it when He created them that way?

This is an interesting observation
that has resurfaced only recently—that people possess certain inclinations even
from birth, as a sort of default programming.
This time, contrary to the usual way of things, the new observation
turns out to be quite correct. For
decades, if not centuries, it was assumed that humans began as a neutral “blank
slate,” and that from morality to aesthetic tastes to various sorts of desires,
they were shaped by authorities and experiences toward certain outcomes.

It turns out, however, that the idea
that humans are born already possessing a variety of inclinations is quite
Biblical. King David lamented the fact
in the Psalms that he was sinful “from birth, even from the time my mother
conceived me.” Likewise the Apostle Paul
observed how his highest desire to please God and do good was at war within him
against an entrenched inclination to do what is evil and disobey God.

The difficulty with this newly
rediscovered truth is the next step that is often taken in argumentation: that
such inborn desires are part of God’s creation and therefore not contrary to
God’s will or subject to his judgment.
The Bible describes humanity as created in perfect harmony with God’s
will and only later plunged into the desire to do evil after Adam and Eve first
disobeyed God and introduced sin into the world.

Although different Christian
traditions handle the details in diverse ways, they do hold in common, first,
that the desire for sin is not part of God’s original creation; and second,
that humans are fully responsible for the way in which they behave in response to
their desires. Therefore, even though
the particular sort of desire might vary from individual to individual and
across the seasons of life, all desires are subject to the scrutiny of God’s
law, as revealed in Scripture.

Consider the partial and biased way
in which society often reacts to certain offenses: if a person is greedy or lustful, it is
typically brushed off as a mere weakness or a character flaw, but pedophiles
and drunks are judged harshly and made outcasts. Certainly some actions bring more
far-reaching harm to others, but according to this assumption if these
individuals were born that way, they should be exempt from any judgment—whether
by God or by man.

The approach Jesus takes in the
Gospels is not to debate which sins to excuse and which to condemn. Instead, He preaches that all of God’s law be
taken seriously, so that not only murder, sexual immorality, and theft are to
be avoided, but even hatred, lustful thoughts, and covetousness. And just as all sin, whether in thought,
word, or deed, whether by commission or neglect, whether against God or against
man, is judged equally seriously; all sin is also forgiven equally freely
through trust in Jesus.

Jesus doesn’t excuse any sin or
declare anyone merely close enough to make it.
Instead, He dies for sin, in the place of sinners, even though not
guilty of it Himself. Then He invites
all people to agree with God’s law by acknowledging their failure to keep it
and to trust in Him as the substitute who did so in their place.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

I compiled these reflections for the work of a task force I am participating in on the topic of treating habitual pornography use in pastors, and thought perhaps they might be beneficial for others if they were also made available here:

The starting point for any question of sexuality for the Christian is always the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery.” This commandment not only demands that man “lead a sexually pure and decent life,” but also that “husband and wife love and honor each other,” but, as we confess in the liturgy, this decency and honor are to be carried out “in thought, word, and deed.”

Throughout the Old Testament, from Job’s making “covenant with [his] eyes not to look lustfully at a girl,” to King David’s ill-advised glance at Bathsheba, its consequent calamities, and their son’s admonition in the Song of Songs not to awaken sexual desire prematurely; from Ezekiel’s description of the Israelites’ lust after their Egyptian captors to Hosea’s divinely-mandated marriage to the prostitute Gomer, the dangers of lust are demonstrated and the relationship is established that adultery and idolatry go hand in hand.

Jesus gives this idea New Testament expression in no uncertain terms when He declares, “You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you, if a man even looks upon a woman with lustful intent, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In saying this, He gives us absolute certainty that there is not a certain plain which one may not cross or a certain base that one may not round. Instead, the moment that the desire is entertained or the intent is formed, the sin has already been committed.

The Apostle Paul warns similarly in Ephesians that there should not even be “a hint” of sexual immorality among Christians, and to Timothy that young men and women ought to treat one another like siblings outside of marriage. Although there may be differing degrees of earthly consequences, pornography, “adult” entertainment featuring live nudity, physical extra-marital affairs, and even inappropriate fantasies about other people who remain fully-clothed, are all, spiritually speaking, sinful violations of God’s intentions for human sexuality.

While our identity as Christians and as Church is not found in our morality, nor are we to consider ourselves superior to those whose immorality is of a different, less socially-acceptable, variety than our own, out of love for our neighbor, we confess the goodness of God’s design of our physical bodies and His intent for the marital union exclusively between a husband and wife. We likewise confess that any thought, word, or action which breaks or interferes in this union is contrary to His will and not to be entertained by Christians.

God institutes all of the horizontal relationships of human life (parent-child, pastor-congregation, government-citizen, etc.) to be reflections of the greater vertical relationships between God and humanity or Jesus and His Church, and whenever an alteration occurs, whether to the number or the identity of the participants (even if only in thought or fantasy) they fail to reflect the greater divine truth as he intended. Among these relationships marriage is a particular reflection of the relationship between Christ and His Church as described by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5.

There is one Christ and one Church just as there is one husband and one wife. Christ does not have many churches or fantasize over other churches, nor is He satisfied to dwell alone, apart from His Church. Likewise, the Church does not have many saviors or fantasize over other saviors, nor does she satisfy her own needs alone, apart from Christ.

As pornography allows one to achieve sexual gratification based on the image of a partner other than one’s own spouse, it certainly constitutes adultery by Scriptural definition. Furthermore, it causes the practical consequence of relational destruction between husbands and wives, parents and children, pastors and congregations. In doing so, it causes pain and division between individuals and places barriers between the earthly vocations through which God desires to bless us and illustrate His fatherly care and deliver his forgiving grace.

This affliction is particularly damaging when the man guilty of such sins is a pastor, because by causing scandal in the congregation it has the potential to become an obstacle to the reception of God’s forgiving grace which is dispensed there. A fit pastor is therefore described in Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus as being “a one-woman man.” Just as Christ is devoted to His Church, so also is a man to his wife. While this expectation is true for every Christian, a failure in this respect may disqualify a man from the office of pastor, making pornography habits a particular burden for Christian clergy and, along with the tarnished reputation to the congregation if publicized, a particular concern for their congregations.

As Christians confronted with the temptations of lust and sexual immorality, we live repentantly, acknowledging our fault for such desires which arise from within our own hearts (Mark 7:21). Although we do not resist them perfectly, we confess the goodness of God’s law and our failure to keep it; we receive His forgiveness by grace, through faith, on account of His crucified Son; and we desire to go forward in lives which reflect His character and design.

While the Lord has provided the means to forgive our sin in His Gospel and Sacraments, Confession and Absolution, we continue to struggle against sin just as Paul describes of his own experience in Romans 7. Simultaneously saint and sinner, we are forgiven yet struggle against the habits and desires of our sinful hearts. For this reason the assistance of a Christian professional skilled in the observation of human behavior and the workings of the mind is a beneficial support alongside the cure of the soul provided by one’s father confessor. The grace of God relieves the guilt of this sin and produces the desire to amend one’s ways, and the competent guidance of a Christian counselor assists in the practical struggle toward that end.

Lutheranism is more than a cultural identity or a denominational label. In fact, this cultural and institutional baggage may be the primary obstacle in Lutheranism’s path.

To be a Lutheran is not dependent on a code of behavior or a set of common customs. Instead, to be a Lutheran is to receive Jesus in His Word, Body, and Blood for the forgiveness of sins in the Divine Service; and to be bearers of this pure Truth to a broken world corrupted with sin, death, and every lie of the devil and man’s own sinful heart.

While the false and misleading ideas of human religious invention are appealing to sin-blinded minds, they fail when exposed to the realities of life. It is tragic when souls are led to confusion and despair because of the false religious ideas with which they are surrounded. The Biblical doctrine taught by the Apostles and restored at the Reformation holds answers which are relevant regardless of time or place and offers assurance of forgiven sins and eternal life who all who believe its message.

I am a husband, a father, the pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Burt, IA, and track chaplain at Algona Raceway.